Madigan’s Procrastination Rewarded….Again

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan was granted a second extension of time in which to file an appeal in the joint cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan. Justice Elena Kagan granted the extension of time to file the appeal until July 22nd.

The extension was granted by Justice Kagan on June 18th. One has to wonder if it had been Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia would Madigan have gotten her extension granted so easily. Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit is assigned to Justice Kagan for these type of matters.

The whole issue would become moot if Gov. Pat Quinn signs the carry bill that was passed on June 4th by the Illinois General Assembly. Madigan’s father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, is urging Quinn to do just that.

The Chicago Democrat’s office said Tuesday that the governor has not decided what action he’ll take on the legislation. The attorney general’s office released Kagan’s order but did not have an immediate comment.

House Speaker Michael Madigan – the attorney general’s father and a fellow Chicago Democrat – urged Quinn to sign the bill, which was a hard-fought compromise between the House and Senate.

“If you look at the vote in the House and the Senate it’s pretty clear that the governor’s veto could be overridden,” Madigan said after an unrelated committee hearing Tuesday.

As Sebastian noted when Madigan requested the second extension, this is getting ridiculous and it is time for Illinois politicians to stop playing games.

Madigan Files For 30 Day Stay On Mandate (Updated)

Getting each house of the Illinois General Assembly to pass a concealed carry law with lopsided margins looks to have been the easy part. The harder part, in many ways, is going to be getting the law implemented.

It just got a bit harder today thanks to the machinations of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. She has filed a motion to stay the 7th Circuit’s 180 day mandate to have a concealed carry law in place for another 30 days. She gives as her rationale that it would give Gov. Pat Quinn “a reasonable time to fulfill his constitutional duties.” The Illinois Constitution gives the governor 60 days after a bill’s passage to consider and sign it. That amount of time is one of the longest in the nation according to the National Governor’s Association.

Madigan argues that the additional time is necessary to avoid having no state law in place which she says was the court’s original intent of the 180-day stay of its mandate.

The expiration of the stay on June 9 without a substitute law in place
would present a significant harm, not to the defendants in an individualized or
official capacity, but to the People and Constitution of Illinois. The current stay of
this Court’s mandate expires in less than one week, significantly shortening the
sixty-day period constitutionally afforded the Governor to consider and sign
legislation into law. Expiration of the stay on June 9 will either eliminate that
constitutionally-provided period entirely or create a gap in state firearm regulation.
These represent unnecessary harms to the public interest.

Madigan goes on to argue that 30 days is only for the “orderly completion of the legislative process and is not intended for purposes of delay.” If this is indeed the case, one might well ask why Madigan isn’t asking for 51 days or the full amount of time left for Gov. Quinn to either sign or veto the bill under the Illinois Constitution.

Madigan concludes her argument by saying she recognizes that a delay of a constitutional right imposes a burden upon the plaintiffs but that is outweighed by the public’s interest in not having a period where no law is in effect.

It should be noted that Madigan still has another 21 days left on her extension in which to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court appealing this case. There is no word on what she intends to do regarding that.

UPDATE: Despite it being highly irregular and that a stay would seem to violate many of the Rules of Federal Appellate Procedure, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan got her order staying the mandate of the court for another 30 days. 

June 3, 2013, by counsel for the appellees.

DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants Michael Moore, Charles
Hooks, Peggy Fechter, Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and
Illinois Carry.

FOR ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants
Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay mandate for additional 30 days is GRANTED.
This court’s mandate is STAYED until July 9, 2013. No further extensions to stay the court’s
mandate will be granted.


 Sebastian has more on the opposing motions here.

Supreme Court Grants Illinois 30-Day Extension

The United States Supreme Court has granted Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request for a 30-day extension in which to file a writ of certiorari in the joint carry cases of Shepard v. Madigan and Moore v. Madigan.

The application was granted by Justice Kagan.

From the court’s order:

Lisa Madigan, et al., Applicants
Michael Moore, et al.
Docketed: May 1, 2013
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (12-1269, 12-1788)

~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 26 2013 Application (12A1053) to extend the time to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari from May 23, 2013 to June 24, 2013,
submitted to Justice Kagan.
May 2 2013 Application (12A1053) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 24, 2013.

Illinois AG Madigan Requests En Banc Hearing In Carry Cases

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced today that she will be requesting an en banc review of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the joint cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan. This decision by the 7th Circuit would have forced the Illinois General Assembly to come up with some form of concealed carry within 180 days. An en banc review means all the judges of the 7th Circuit will review the case and not just the three judge panel assigned to the case. As I understand it, a petition for an en banc review is not automatically granted.

There had been some question on whether or not Madigan would appeal or seek an en banc review given her ambitions to succeed Pat Quinn as Governor of Illinois. Letting the decision stand would have been a bone tossed to downstate Illinois Democrats who tend to look at gun rights more favorably. I take Madigan’s petition as an indication that she feels that gun control post-Newtown is a winning proposition.

From Madigan’s press release:

Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced she has filed a petition for rehearing before the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in lawsuits challenging the Illinois laws that prevent the carrying of ready-to-use firearms in public.

The Attorney General’s petition for a rehearing “en banc” is a request for all of the judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case after a December decision by a three-judge panel of the court held that the state laws barring carrying ready-to-use firearms in public are unconstitutional.

Madigan’s petition was filed in lawsuits brought against the State of Illinois by Michael Moore, Mary E. Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, which allege that Illinois’ restrictions on the carrying of ready-to-use weapons in public violates their Second Amendment rights. The laws had previously been upheld by two separate federal district courts in Illinois.

In its December decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set a 180-day deadline for the Illinois legislature to draft and enact new laws relating to carrying ready-to-use firearms in public. Today’s petition for rehearing by the Attorney General does not affect that deadline.

Madigan issued the following statement regarding her decision to seek a rehearing:

“In ruling that Illinois must allow individuals to carry ready-to-use firearms in public, the 7th Circuit Court’s decision goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held and conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts. Based on those decisions, it is appropriate to ask the full 7th Circuit to review this case and consider adopting an approach that is consistent with the other appellate courts that have addressed these issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.”

UPDATE: The petition from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office can be found here.

The Brady Center along with Trayvon Martin’s parents and others have filed an amicus brief in support of the Madigan’s petition. It can be found here. Frankly, I find the thought of including Trayvon Martin’s parents in the amicus brief just a trifle tacky. But then again, this is the new and improved Brady Center.

There is also an amicus brief in support of Madigan’s petition from the City of Chicago, the Chicago Board of Ed, the Chicago Transit Authority, and the Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the old LCAV) which can be found here.

Lisa’s Dilemma

Poor little Lisa. She has to decide if she wants to be governor or to satisfy the Chicago Democrats who have been some her biggest supporters.

Lisa is, of course, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. She is also the eldest daughter of Michael Madigan who is Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.

The decision Lisa must make is whether or not to appeal the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan to the United States Supreme Court. The court’s decision mandates some sort of concealed carry law in Illinois in 180 days.

An interesting article in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch puts it this way:

Now Madigan, a Chicago Democrat who is widely viewed as a governor-in-waiting, faces a dilemma that is unique to Illinois: If she sides with gun-control advocates and appeals the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, she could deepen her party’s north-south regional rift while losing support from pro-gun downstate Democrats.

But if she lets the ruling stand, she could inadvertently end up as the face of concealed carry in Illinois, tarnishing her shining image with her core base of anti-gun Chicago Democrats.

While Chicago Democrats tend to be uniformly in the gun prohibitionist camp, it is important to remember in Illinois that downstate Democrats tend to be pro-gun rights. The concealed carry law that fell just a few votes short last year in the Illinois General Assembly had substantial support from Democrats outside of Chicagoland.

Downstate Democrats such as St. Sen. Bill Haine (D-Alton) are urging Madigan to leave things stand as it will hurt Democrats if she appeals. A number of Illinois political scientists agree with Haine.

“This has been the most divisive issue between Chicago and downstate,” said state Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, a gun-rights advocate. He argues that it’s both in Madigan’s political interest and the state’s interest to let the ruling stand, which would mean Illinois would have to create a concealed carry law within 180 days.

“An appeal certainly doesn’t serve (Madigan’s) interests personally. Many people downstate would not understand,” Haine said. “They would conclude that this is just more Chicago politics.”

Chris Mooney, political scientist at the University of Illinois at Springfield, agrees.

“If she makes a federal case out of it, so to speak, there may be alienation of the Democratic Party downstate. That’s probably her biggest problem with pursuing this,” Mooney said. “The party made some progress downstate (in the last election). They want to be seen as more inclusive and not as ruling everything from Chicago.”

With an appeal, Madigan could also face the risk of a high-profile defeat in the nation’s highest court.

“Number one, you’re going to lose,” says John Jackson, political scientist at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. “There’s almost no chance the Supreme Court of the United States, as it’s currently composed, is going to overturn (the ruling).

“The smartest thing (for Madigan) to do,” he said, “is to leave it alone. There’s some voters in Chicago who might not like it … but I think they’re starting to realize they’ve lost the battle.”

Chicago Democrats such as House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) and Gov. Pat Quinn are urging Madigan to appeal.

Madigan herself has stayed quiet on her plans saying she is just studying the decision.

Part of me hopes that Madigan does appeal. The other part of me wants to see shall-issue concealed carry in Illinois sooner than later. On Saturday I will be driving to St. Louis and will go through Illinois. My hope is that by next Christmas I won’t have to disarm when I cross the Ohio River at Paducah, Kentucky and enter Illinois. I guess I have a dilemma, too.

Just Like Clockwork

It didn’t take long for the Chicago Sun-Times to call upon Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the joint cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan.

In their lead editorial today entitled “Madigan should appeal gun ruling”, the Sun-Times opines:

Illinois’ status as the only state that does not allow the carrying of concealed loaded guns was threatened Tuesday when a federal appeals court gave the state 180 days to change its law.

But that doesn’t mean Illinois should immediately allow anyone who feels like it to start toting a pistol.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who said Tuesday that she is reviewing her options, should appeal the overbroad ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. And if the courts won’t extend the deadline while considering the appeal, the Legislature will have to craft a law that meets the court’s standards while providing as many protections as possible for citizens who don’t carry guns.

The Legislature might even be able to find a way to continue banning concealed carry while rewriting the law to satisfy the appeals court, which said the current law doesn’t rest on sufficient justification. Short of that, the Legislature could consider a narrowly crafted law, such as that in New York, which has concealed carry in theory but does not grant many permits.

Reading the full editorial, one can’t help but get the feeling that the editors of the Sun-Times are the residents of the 35th floor of the Park Tower of whom Judge Posner said had less need for concealed carry than people living in rough neighborhoods.

Frankly, I hope Ms. Madigan does pull an “Adrian Fenty” and appeal the ruling. Without the hubris of former Washington, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, we would never have had the Heller decision confirming the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Likewise, without cases like this one being appealed, we will never get a decision from the Supreme Court on the right to carry outside the home.